Monday April 6, 2009Categories: OrthodoxyFor Orthodox Christian readers, I have a big international news story to report from Dallas. You might have read the red-hot shots a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew took at the OCA Metropolitan Jonah recently, as part of the EP's plan for all American Orthodox Christians to submit to the headship of the EP, who is based in a compound in Istanbul.

Well. Last night at Pan-Orthodox Vespers here at St. Seraphim Cathedral here in Dallas, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA responded. Watch his sermon here. It's a bombshell that will rock the Orthodox world. Concluding line: "We might affirm to our bishops that they might tell the churches of the Old World: 'There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone.'"

Below is a link to a video of the sermon of Metropolitan Jonah last evening at the Pan-Orthodox Vespers at St. Seraphim Orthodox Cathedral in Dallas. It's about 23 minutes long and offers both a response to the proposal to unite the Orthodox jurisdictions in North America under the Patriarch of Constantinople and a vision for Orthodox unity in North America.

Monday April 6, 2009Categories: OrthodoxyFor Orthodox Christian readers, I have a big international news story to report from Dallas. You might have read the red-hot shots a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew took at the OCA Metropolitan Jonah recently, as part of the EP's plan for all American Orthodox Christians to submit to the headship of the EP, who is based in a compound in Istanbul.

Well. Last night at Pan-Orthodox Vespers here at St. Seraphim Cathedral here in Dallas, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA responded. Watch his sermon here. It's a bombshell that will rock the Orthodox world. Concluding line: "We might affirm to our bishops that they might tell the churches of the Old World: 'There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone.'"

I like that he explicitely mentioned the WRO as Orthodox (the OCA doesn't at present have WRO).

I like that he underlined the Amerindian Orthodox.

Also that he said that it was not just "joining the OCA," but a new reorganization.

His point on Kosovo shows the need for a strong united voice.

I like the respect he showed to the Holy Fathers, as he says.

He didn't pull any punches. Any EP people in attendance?

Any reason why that meeting will be in Cyprus, not Constantinople?

Ironic that, as his beatitude points out, those few parishes that did not recognize the American bishops from Russia, a thing the Chief Secretary condemns, are the very foundation on which the EP's claims rest.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 09:44:46 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).

Oh, what record would that be?

Given the "praise" that the Chief Secretary heaped on him, maybe the gerontas should go to Brookline first, monastitc to archimandirite.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 10:00:36 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect. Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.

Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect. Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.

I just wanted to fill in between the lines for the benefit of our viewers.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect. Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.

I just wanted to fill in between the lines for the benefit of our viewers.

As for your second point, Fr. Elpidoforos was at the school only for a week. He then returned to Constantinople. If Fr. Ephraim wants to visit there, or if Met. Jonah wants to visit there, they are more than welcome to.

I was actually wondering if Met. Jonah would even be invited to the pan orthodox meeting in June anyway, since he is not recognized by the orthodox in the world as autocephalous. interesting stuff.

Well, the gloves are off. Point and counterpoint have been made. I pray that any discussion on this forum will not degenerate into antagonisms. It is a given that some folks will disagree: I hope we will stay civil.

That said, I agree with Metropolitan Jonah. I also like that he made a point of conciliarity where the voices of the lower clergy and laity will not be suppressed or ignored (I am paraphrasing).

Well, the gloves are off. Point and counterpoint have been made. I pray that any discussion on this forum will not degenerate into antagonisms. It is a given that some folks will disagree: I hope we will stay civil.

That said, I agree with Metropolitan Jonah. I also like that he made a point of conciliarity where the voices of the lower clergy and laity will not be suppressed or ignored (I am paraphrasing).

You know...I really don't think it's gona happen. Until about now I was gona respond very angrily to what you had just said. But you know what...it is better for us to have fruitful dialogue than angry dialogue.

I think there are a lot of problems in this speach. Many holes and improper statements. If he really means what he is saying, then he is just begging the patriarchates to say..."you know what, you're on your own"..."form your own church"..."be like HOCNA" or other schismatics, etc. They could say these things and very easily b/c now he has put them in a corner. It's us vs. them. Not what I would say is a good move by an "orthodox" hierarch. He himself made excuses for himself, saying that he had never been in this position before. Then how can you sit up there and pontificate. He said that we don't have a pope and we don't need a pope under islamic rule...well...how about one from american liberalist democracy? Anyway...maybe it's not the right time for this. Did he think of that? Did he just go out there and do what he wanted? A lot of questions my friend...a lot of questions.

I think there are a lot of problems in this speach. Many holes and improper statements. If he really means what he is saying, then he is just begging the patriarchates to say..."you know what, you're on your own"..."form your own church"..."be like HOCNA" or other schismatics, etc. They could say these things and very easily b/c now he has put them in a corner. It's us vs. them. Not what I would say is a good move by an "orthodox" hierarch. He himself made excuses for himself, saying that he had never been in this position before. Then how can you sit up there and pontificate. He said that we don't have a pope and we don't need a pope under islamic rule...well...how about one from american liberalist democracy? Anyway...maybe it's not the right time for this. Did he think of that? Did he just go out there and do what he wanted? A lot of questions my friend...a lot of questions.

Thanks for your kind reply. I do wonder whether we can ever look at this from outside in. It seems to me that there are two diametrically opposed views and if one adheres to one, the other would be improper and wrong. This is a momentous time as, for the first time in many centuries, an argument of great ecclesiological import has started. I hope that the argument is an honest one and I hope it is conducted in a slightly higher plane than the tone and tenor of the Chief Secretary's point ("the so-called OCA") and Metropolitan Jonah's counterpoint (the Pope comment).

It may be useful to catalog the chief issues in this argument. I'll give a shot at starting one:

- Is North America a place of diaspora alone or a nation/country/province as the Early fathers had conceived where there are folks from other nations? Is the concept of diaspora applicable in today's flat earth (to use Tom Friedman's concept)?

- What does Canon 28 mean? Sub-topics:

(1) since the place of honor was ostensibly decided on the basis of political importance, how do the changed circumstances affect the order of honor?

(2) What is the correct interpretation of the last part of the canon? "And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him."

- What is autocephaly? Once given, can and should it be taken away?

- What is the proper Orthodox form of governance? Monarchical or conciliar? And, which form is sounder from a theological point of view?

Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect. Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.

I just wanted to fill in between the lines for the benefit of our viewers.

The Chief Secretary's speech was kinder to the Gerontas than to Met. Jonah or Met. Philip, only in that he didn't attact him by name. At least he quoted the Metropolitan's, he only characterized, or caracturized, the Gerontas.

Quote

As for your second point, Fr. Elpidoforos was at the school only for a week. He then returned to Constantinople.

Intereting.

Was he in town just to lob grenades, or was there something useful on his agenda?

Quote

If Fr. Ephraim wants to visit there, or if Met. Jonah wants to visit there, they are more than welcome to.

I was actually wondering if Met. Jonah would even be invited to the pan orthodox meeting in June anyway,

I doubt that his invitation got lost in the mail. All that nonsense from the Chief Secretary over the EP's "concession" over autonmous Churches like Estonia indicates that.

Quote

since he is not recognized by the orthodox in the world as autocephalous.

Actually, the majority of the Orthodox in the world recognize him as autocephalous. And since NO ONE buys the EP's interpretation on canon 28 of Chalcedon, even those in his own patriarchate, Met. Jonah a bit up on him on that.

Quote

interesting stuff.

Indeed.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 11:00:50 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, the gloves are off. Point and counterpoint have been made. I pray that any discussion on this forum will not degenerate into antagonisms. It is a given that some folks will disagree: I hope we will stay civil.

That said, I agree with Metropolitan Jonah. I also like that he made a point of conciliarity where the voices of the lower clergy and laity will not be suppressed or ignored (I am paraphrasing).

You know...I really don't think it's gona happen. Until about now I was gona respond very angrily to what you had just said. But you know what...it is better for us to have fruitful dialogue than angry dialogue.

I think there are a lot of problems in this speach. Many holes and improper statements.

Name one.

Quote

If he really means what he is saying, then he is just begging the patriarchates to say..."you know what, you're on your own"..."form your own church"..."be like HOCNA" or other schismatics, etc.

You forget, as someone posted a while ago, Met. Jonah was given words of encouragement from the big enchilada himself, Pat. Kyrill.

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill refers to the "demons of feeble impertinence" - taken to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech at Holy Cross of the Chief Secretary of the Sacred Synod.

Quote

They could say these things and very easily b/c now he has put them in a corner. It's us vs. them. Not what I would say is a good move by an "orthodox" hierarch. He himself made excuses for himself, saying that he had never been in this position before. Then how can you sit up there and pontificate.

Because someone else thinks he is supreme pontiff, and it's not the hierarch in Old Rome (we know him). As Met. Jonah said, if we wanted Ultramontanism, we should take it straight (paraphrased).

Quote

He said that we don't have a pope and we don't need a pope under islamic rule...well...how about one from american liberalist democracy?

Oh, please. Been to Athens lately? The GOA owes its existence to Bp. Arbp. EP Pope Meletius acting as chaplain for "liberal democracy."

Quote

Anyway...maybe it's not the right time for this. Did he think of that? Did he just go out there and do what he wanted? A lot of questions my friend...a lot of questions.

All answered: the Orthodox Church in America is a FACT.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 11:11:50 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Thanks for your kind reply. I do wonder whether we can ever look at this from outside in. It seems to me that there are two diametrically opposed views and if one adheres to one, the other would be improper and wrong. This is a momentous time as, for the first time in many centuries, an argument of great ecclesiological import has started. I hope that the argument is an honest one and I hope it is conducted in a slightly higher plane than the tone and tenor of the Chief Secretary's point ("the so-called OCA") and Metropolitan Jonah's counterpoint (the Pope comment).

It may be useful to catalog the chief issues in this argument. I'll give a shot at starting one:

- Is North America a place of diaspora alone or a nation/country/province as the Early fathers had conceived where there are folks from other nations? Is the concept of diaspora applicable in today's flat earth (to use Tom Friedman's concept)?

I'm intrigued. What is that concept?

I'd love to show where the idea of "diaspora" shows up in the Fathers. I think they would find it an alien concept.

Quote

- What does Canon 28 mean? Sub-topics:

(1) since the place of honor was ostensibly decided on the basis of political importance, how do the changed circumstances affect the order of honor?

(2) What is the correct interpretation of the last part of the canon? "And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him."

- What is autocephaly? Once given, can and should it be taken away?

- What is the proper Orthodox form of governance? Monarchical or conciliar? And, which form is sounder from a theological point of view?

- What is meant by "first among equals"?

Can someone provide a single example of the EP's understanding of canon 28 from before the 20th century?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think the OCA has a "plurality of popular vote" of support in the world, even if it doesn't have the "plurality of electoral votes"

I think other countries also have to learn a lot more about American history and culture. Our country was born out of a desire to be self-ruled and not ruled by a King that is over 3,000 miles across the Atlantic.

How can they expect Americans (nat born and immigrants) to desire to be ruled by a non-American authority that isn't just 3,000 miles away, but over 5,000 miles away and under Turkish/Islamic domination. (or even under Russia for that matter)

Also, having the main head of the church that far away, and under another country's rule would not let us start to be a voice in America, especially in politics.

Regarding my comment on "flat earth," Thomas Friedman has written a book "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of The Twenty-first Century (2005; expanded edition 2006; revised edition 2007)" that says that the world of nations as we knew it (sometimes separated by oceans, great distances, and languages) has evolved to one that, at least in the economic sphere, has become one entity: Global language (English), global currency (the US dollar), lightning fast communications, and no national boundaries. Of course, the current economic situation belies this somewhat and the world may go back to the way it was should things get worse.

BTW, I have the feeling that the concept of diaspora (scattering of seeds) must have some purpose behind it beyond describing a phenomenon. At the very least, I think that it includes the expectation that the scattered seeds will remain true to type, that those in diaspora would remain strangers in a strange land, forever yearning to return to their roots. In contrast, as a naturalized citizen, I knew that my oath of allegiance to the United States forever made me different than my original ethnic/national affiliation.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I think the OCA has a "plurality of popular vote" of support in the world, even if it doesn't have the "plurality of electoral votes"

Doubt it.

Quote

I think other countries also have to learn a lot more about American history and culture. Our country was born out of a desire to be self-ruled and not ruled by a King that is over 3,000 miles across the Atlantic.

We know more than we ever wanted to, thanks for the offer though.

Quote

How can they expect Americans (nat born and immigrants) to desire to be ruled by a non-American authority that isn't just 3,000 miles away, but over 5,000 miles away and under Turkish/Islamic domination. (or even under Russia for that matter)

We are not Roman Catholic. We are not ruled by any bishops on foreign lands. The ruling bishop is the bishop of your local Diocese.

Quote

Also, having the main head of the church that far away, and under another country's rule would not let us start to be a voice in America, especially in politics.

You have Greek money and Arab money. If the Ukrainians weren't so cheap, you would have their money too. Money is all you need in politics.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 11:55:50 PM by Ukiemeister »

Logged

“Find the door of your heart, and you will discover it is the door to the kingdom of God.” - St. John Chrysostom

Being new to the game here (Orthodoxy in general), I don't have a real stake in either side. All I know of Orthodoxy is what I have encountered in Missouri. There are only something to the effect of 13 actual Orthodox churches in Missouri. In the metro area of Kansas City, which extends into Kansas, there are six churches. I have visited all of them this Lent, as every Sunday night we all meet for Pan-Orthodox vespers at a different church.

Everyone I have met has been wonderful, and almost all churches are of different jurisdictions. We all share a bond of faith, and it does not seem divided at all. Whatever the outcome of all of this is, we will still have the Body and Blood of Christ and the liturgy that unites us all! I just pray for peace and a jurisdictional unity here in North America (Canada and Mexico included, of course!), and I pray that God would calm people's hearts and lead them to a decision that is best for all of the Church, in the New and Old World.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I, Ukiemeister, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

Logged

“Find the door of your heart, and you will discover it is the door to the kingdom of God.” - St. John Chrysostom

Actually, the majority of the Orthodox in the world recognize him as autocephalous. And since NO ONE buys the EP's interpretation on canon 28 of Chalcedon, even those in his own patriarchate, Met. Jonah a bit up on him on that.

The majority of Orthodox WHOM? If you go by majority of Orthodox faithful, then you MIGHT have a valid point, since the Russian Orthodox Church appears to have more communicants than any other Orthodox jurisdiction in the world. However, the Orthodox faithful really don't have much say in this matter. However, if you go by majority of Orthodox primates, the heads of national/regional churches who actually have a say, then I think you're dead wrong.

Met. Jonah reveals that the pre-conciliar commission on unified administration in the diaspora, i.e. North America, intends to agree to placing North America under the Ecumenical Partiarchate, while he asks the Old World Patriarchates, to leave North America alone. These extreem positions will get us nowhere, a very small group of jurisdictions within the American malaise, who are thought of by their fellow countrymen as ethnic clubs, if that. Compromise, transitional models have to be examined by moderate level headed, Christ-like hierarchs. Perhaps a transitional committee of hierarchs from the affected Churches, Constantinople, Russia, Antioch, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania, could receive proposals for North American administration from a representative group of American ruling hierarchs, priests and devout laity. A transitional synod could be established for Noth America, under a plan for eventual self-rule. Compromises must be exchaged. The Old World Patriarchates are not going to let go, nor will they give their jurisdictions to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The process much be conciliar. Existing parish practices must be retained.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Thanks for your kind reply. I do wonder whether we can ever look at this from outside in. It seems to me that there are two diametrically opposed views and if one adheres to one, the other would be improper and wrong. This is a momentous time as, for the first time in many centuries, an argument of great ecclesiological import has started. I hope that the argument is an honest one and I hope it is conducted in a slightly higher plane than the tone and tenor of the Chief Secretary's point ("the so-called OCA") and Metropolitan Jonah's counterpoint (the Pope comment).

It may be useful to catalog the chief issues in this argument. I'll give a shot at starting one:

- Is North America a place of diaspora alone or a nation/country/province as the Early fathers had conceived where there are folks from other nations? Is the concept of diaspora applicable in today's flat earth (to use Tom Friedman's concept)?

- What does Canon 28 mean? Sub-topics:

(1) since the place of honor was ostensibly decided on the basis of political importance, how do the changed circumstances affect the order of honor?

(2) What is the correct interpretation of the last part of the canon? "And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him."

- What is autocephaly? Once given, can and should it be taken away?

- What is the proper Orthodox form of governance? Monarchical or conciliar? And, which form is sounder from a theological point of view?

- What is meant by "first among equals"?

Sorry brother but I don't think i'm going to get any time to really answer any of these questions. I think more than half of them are being answered by other threads anyway, so you might want to do some searching and attack these things one by one. Unfortunately I don't think i'm going to approach them here. Sorry.

Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect. Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.

I just wanted to fill in between the lines for the benefit of our viewers.

The Chief Secretary's speech was kinder to the Gerontas than to Met. Jonah or Met. Philip, only in that he didn't attact him by name. At least he quoted the Metropolitan's, he only characterized, or caracturized, the Gerontas.

I gotcha. Don't know if i'd characterize it that way, but definitely see where your coming from.

Quote

Quote

As for your second point, Fr. Elpidoforos was at the school only for a week. He then returned to Constantinople.

Intereting.

Was he in town just to lob grenades, or was there something useful on his agenda?

Actually he was there to give the Inaugural Ecumenical Patriarchate Lecture to the Archons of the Order of St. Andrew, who were on campus for the weekend retreat. He then gave the same retreat to the local clergy syndesmos and sat in on classes the whole week, to continue the conversation he had started that week. He made himself available to every person on campus, for whatever amount of time he wanted.

Quote

Quote

If Fr. Ephraim wants to visit there, or if Met. Jonah wants to visit there, they are more than welcome to.

I was actually wondering if Met. Jonah would even be invited to the pan orthodox meeting in June anyway,

I doubt that his invitation got lost in the mail. All that nonsense from the Chief Secretary over the EP's "concession" over autonmous Churches like Estonia indicates that.

Well firstly I don't think he was even sent an invitation, because he is not recognized as an autocephalous church in the dyptichs and etc.

Secondly, the concession was for the Moscow Patriarchate, not for the OCA, so not sure how that supports your statement here...

Quote

Quote

since he is not recognized by the orthodox in the world as autocephalous.

Actually, the majority of the Orthodox in the world recognize him as autocephalous. And since NO ONE buys the EP's interpretation on canon 28 of Chalcedon, even those in his own patriarchate, Met. Jonah a bit up on him on that.

I was always under the impression that only a handful (at best) of the churches accepted the autocephaly. I'm not sure where that information would be, but it would be good if we got an official ruling on that one, since we've been throwing it around a lot.

Actually if no one bought the interpretation why is everyone allowing him to utilize the interpretation? Seems to be a mistake in logic here...

Well, the gloves are off. Point and counterpoint have been made. I pray that any discussion on this forum will not degenerate into antagonisms. It is a given that some folks will disagree: I hope we will stay civil.

That said, I agree with Metropolitan Jonah. I also like that he made a point of conciliarity where the voices of the lower clergy and laity will not be suppressed or ignored (I am paraphrasing).

You know...I really don't think it's gona happen. Until about now I was gona respond very angrily to what you had just said. But you know what...it is better for us to have fruitful dialogue than angry dialogue.

I think there are a lot of problems in this speach. Many holes and improper statements.

Name one.

Quote

"There are those there who say there was no canonical Orthodox Church in North America until 1924" until the Ecumenical Patriarchate established the Greek Orthodox Archidocese here, Jonah said.

Who has said this? I would call this an improper statement. There are many other things that I saw as "back and forth" contradicting himself, etc. I plan on listening to the whole thing again and writing it all out.

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill refers to the "demons of feeble impertinence" - taken to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech at Holy Cross of the Chief Secretary of the Sacred Synod.

I didn't forget anything. I just hadn't read it. Also, my first question is "who is taking it to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech"? Are you making that inference? Is Fr. Ambrose? I'd be interested in knowing how we can infer such things without speaking to the Patriarch (Kyril) directly.

Quote

Quote

They could say these things and very easily b/c now he has put them in a corner. It's us vs. them. Not what I would say is a good move by an "orthodox" hierarch. He himself made excuses for himself, saying that he had never been in this position before. Then how can you sit up there and pontificate.

Because someone else thinks he is supreme pontiff, and it's not the hierarch in Old Rome (we know him). As Met. Jonah said, if we wanted Ultramontanism, we should take it straight (paraphrased).

Care to substantiate that? When has Patriarch Bartholomew said that he is the supreme pontif?

Quote

Quote

He said that we don't have a pope and we don't need a pope under islamic rule...well...how about one from american liberalist democracy?

Oh, please. Been to Athens lately? The GOA owes its existence to Bp. Arbp. EP Pope Meletius acting as chaplain for "liberal democracy."

I've actually lived in athens. How much time have you spent there?

I wouldn't call him a pope unless that was his actual title. Otherwise that's just plain old slander. And in terms of him being a chaplain of liberal democracy...well if you don't like it when he did it (which i'm not saying is true, but for the sake of the argument), then you'll hate it when Met. Jonah does it. Doesn't seem like that's happening...

Quote

Quote

Anyway...maybe it's not the right time for this. Did he think of that? Did he just go out there and do what he wanted? A lot of questions my friend...a lot of questions.

All answered: the Orthodox Church in America is a FACT.

[/quote]

And the orthodox church in america can do nothing by itself, as is proven by this rash and brazen speech which burns bridges with those who brought orthodoxy to america in the first place. If this is what the Orthodox Church in America wants as its MO...I certianly hope all the other churches break communion. What do you think this will accomplish? Wasn't Met. Jonah going to be the great healer? This is not healing, this is pouring salt on the wound.

Based on talking with clergy in each one, I'd say Romania, Serbia, and Antioch do not recognize.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

I wouldn't call him a pope unless that was his actual title. Otherwise that's just plain old slander. And in terms of him being a chaplain of liberal democracy...well if you don't like it when he did it (which i'm not saying is true, but for the sake of the argument), then you'll hate it when Met. Jonah does it. Doesn't seem like that's happening...

I think he's referring to Meletios' final stop as Patriarch of Alexandria, a position that historically has carried the term Pope longer than Rome's bishopric.

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

Listening to it again - the number of unproven assumptions, the inaccurate information, and just some of the stereotypes;I just find amazing that this actually came from a ruling metropolitan. The chorus of angry voices backing his speech in the blog link is not surprising either.

The Russian Orthodox Church has over 190 MILLION members. How many members do all the other jurisdictions have that do not support the OCA? All the jurisdictions that do not support us amount to about 5 million members. Unless you include Serbia and others into that non-supportive group, then it would be about 35 million.

Still though, 190 million vs. 35 million. That is 84% of Orthodox Christians in the world.

Of course, we cannot say that 100% of the Russian Orthodox Christians support the OCA, but still, the amount of support from the Russian Orthodox Church probably does not go as low as only 60% (which if you removed 40% of support from Russian Orthodox Church, support would be split 50/50 in the Orthodox world)

As I said before, if you take the actual members of those Churches, then support for the OCA clearly rests in the majority. Does conciliarity mean that it is just the Patriarchs that make up the Orthodox Church, and that their opinions are really all that matters, or is it rather the 200 and some million members that really make up the Orthodox Church and what we practice/believe?

_______________________

Also, it seems there are opinions here that if the OCA doesn't submit, then we might as well schism... But there is absolutely NO canon that states, that we must submit to a foreign Patriarch if we have our own Metropolitan. Does any other Autocephalous Church answer to any Patriarch of another jurisdiction? Does Ukraine answer to the Moscow Patriarch? Does Romania answer to the Ecumenical Patriarch? No, they don't...The OCA is an autocephalous church whether anyone likes it or not, and we have majority support in the Orthodox world. Accept it, don't try to force us under the authority of any foreign power.

If any of us desires the schism of another, does that not make us the schismatic? We must watch ourselves and make sure we are not desiring or asking for the schism of another Orthodox Christian because we don't agree with them. That is Satan and his demons working to divide the Church, pray that none of us fall under that temptation. (yes, I recognize this goes for me too)

Do not desire the schism of another because you disagree with them, but pray for more Orthodox unity, and leave it to the Lord's will. God will do what he wills, and man will choose whether or not to do his will, but just because you hold an opinion, that doesn't mean it is de facto God's will. Just because a Patriarch says something, doesn't mean it is always God's will.

___________________________

Lastly, the Ecumenical Patriarch will NOT say to the OCA: "You want to be left alone, then be alone, form your own church" Because, he will then have to answer to the Moscow Patriarch. I'm sorry, but the EP is only really symbolic now, with only really and influence over a very small number (relatively) of Orthodox Christians around the world. The MP has influence in a jurisdiction of over 190 million Orthodox Christians. (out of about 225 million) The EP would probably not go so far to say that an independent child of the MP might as well not be Orthodox and should schism.

I am not angry, and I am not in despair either. I personally am leaving this up to God and I'm going to let the hierarchs of our Church fight it out. But I want people to recognize that America is a vastly different culture and nation, and it is unlikely that native-born Americans will want to submit to a culture and ethnic background that is utterly separate and different from our own. While those cultures and ethnic backgrounds are very rich and wonderful, they aren't American. We are a melting pot, not dominated by one culture/ethnicity over another. We celebrate Russian, Greek and all other cultures/ethnic backgrounds. Do not forget where you came from, but remember, you are American and part of a larger picture. Your brothers and sisters in America may be Russian, but they may also be Chinese, Aleut, Mexican, French, African, Dutch, Italian etc... Everyone can celebrate everyone's heritage, but we are all one, united by a common language while celebrating the diversity of languages that exist.

I am not against any other ethnicities or cultures. I even enjoy singing or even sometimes saying prayers in other languages, and am making an attempt to slowly learn Russian and Greek. But that doesn't mean I want to live my life dominated by a foreign culture that I don't really have any connection to.

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill refers to the "demons of feeble impertinence" - taken to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech at Holy Cross of the Chief Secretary of the Sacred Synod.

I didn't forget anything. I just hadn't read it. Also, my first question is "who is taking it to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech"? Are you making that inference? Is Fr. Ambrose? I'd be interested in knowing how we can infer such things without speaking to the Patriarch (Kyril) directly.

It was the understanding of the phrase on such lists as orthodox-forum. When I checked Russian e-groups and forums the Russian priests and faithful see it that way too. In fact I do not remember if there were any other understanding by the Russians. Russian bishops don't write on these groups so we have not seen anything episcopal. It could be totally a wrong understanding but you would think that if so, there would have been some diplomatic demurral from the Patriarchate since it has the potential to cause a lot of damage with Moscow-Constantinople relationships, at a time when both are determined to be amicable for the sake of arranging the upcoming Great and Holy Council.

Quote

Care to substantiate that? When has Patriarch Bartholomew said that he is the supreme pontif?

His representatives at the 2007 Ravenna Meeting, and especially Metropolitan Zizioulas, were very determinedly consolidating a theory of the Ecumenical Patriarch as the "global Primus" for the Orthodox Churches. I imagine that when Constantinople and Rome achieve union the EP will have to pull back from that claimed position in the Church and allow it to be assumed globally by the Pope of Rome.

I am not against any other ethnicities or cultures. I even enjoy singing or even sometimes saying prayers in other languages, and am making an attempt to slowly learn Russian and Greek. But that doesn't mean I want to live my life dominated by a foreign culture that I don't really have any connection to.

is like saying "I don't hate Arabs - I love eating falafel!" (i.e. It doesn't prove that you are not biased against what you're claiming you're not biased against.)

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov